Looks like it's a done deal

[Rooster7]

Unless the government (at any level) conflicts with the constitution, it has the authority to do anything it wants!

 

Well, perhaps that is Robks point. Many of the types of things that the government has chosen to take upon itself has no constitutional basis.

 

Rooster, saying what someone says in private or public doesn't matter is comical. "I did not have sex with that woman!" Does that ring a bell?

 

You lost me. What does Clintons lie have to do with anything?

 

Especially for politicians, which the founding fathers were, what is said in public is for public consumption and I would put much more emphasis on private communication.

 

Regardless, how does any of that nullify my point? Explain to me how this changes anything they said or what they were as people? By the way, many of the quotes I provided, were made in public. In fact, many of these words were spoken to provide support for a government action (i.e., prayer in Congress, proclamation concerning Thanksgiving, and so on).

 

public versus private seems to be at the heart of avowal, and Lambert, had he kept things private, would not have come to our public attention.

 

I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. Yes, the original discussion dealt with Lambert and his status in BSA. However, since then, we moved on to a discussion about who the founding fathers were, and what they believed about our government. Your comment does not address the latter at all. As to the former, Im not an expert on BSA policy in regards to the homosexual and atheist ban (avowed or not, etc.). However, I do know that Lambert as a young man (say 14, 15, 16), whatever his age was when he applied for Eagle, had to realize that BSA required a belief in God. To suggest that by remaining silent for the Duty to God part of the oath exonerates him from wrongdoing is ridiculous. Its tantamount to a ten-year-olds claim that he was crossing his fingers. By omission, Lambert basically lied to BSA, and probably many others associated with the program. He knows it. And anybody else with half a brain knows it. The fact that his Eagle BOR decided to ignore this fact is not an endorsement of Lambert, but a self-indictment that they too have little respect for BSA polices and truth itself.

 

Many of the colonies had laws about who could teach religion in their home.

 

Sctmom,

 

Rather than condemning the founding fathers with one broad brush - Why dont you give us a name (i.e., a signer of the Declaration of Independence)? Please tell us exactly what the law said and who created it. Youre making a pretty vague claim. It makes it very difficult to dispute. If you provide the complete and accurate specifics, perhaps I will acquiesce to your assertion.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[RobK]

While the Government has no Constitutionally-specific authority, where is it written, therein, that Congress is PRECLUDED from the creation of law addressing this...

 

As sctmom so convienently provided:

 

Article X of the Bill of Rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

George Mason and the Anti-Federalists strongly objected to the inclusion of the "general welfare" language in the constitution because they feared it would be misconstrued in exactly the way littlebillie is doing. In response to these fears of the Anti-Federalists, James Madison, widely regarded as the father of the Constitution, in Federalist 41 writes:

 

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury; or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied by signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

 

Madison made the mistake of believing that men in the future would be honorable, honest, and willingly bound by what the Constitution actually says.

 

See also: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

 

and a simple Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=madison+%22general+welfare%22

 

Sctmom, I will readily admit that the federal Constitution does not prohibit the several states from instituting state sponsored education, but it does prohibit the federal government from creating a department of education which controls the states educational establishments by doling out tax money only if the states meet the federal government's wishes.

 

Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Read your state's constitution. You'll be surprised.

[SR540Beaver]

Robk,

 

With all due respect, you are totally coming out of left field. Regardless of the "logic" used (I'd call it rationalization) to come to your conclusion, evolution is not religion. There is no way you can define scientific study as religion in the same vein as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Judiaism. Not only are we talking apples and oranges here, we are talking apples and animals. I've been a Christian (Southern Baptist) for 38 of my 45 years. I graduated with a degree in religion from a Baptist University and worked halfway thru a Masters degree in Religious education. I've been a Youth Minister, Sunday School teacher, ordained Deacon, led Bible studies and preached in crusades in foreign countries. I know my Bible, my faith and my religion. Evolution is not religion. It is a scientific theory and is taught as such. Anyone who teaches it as fact has no idea what they are talking about. Again, you see it as a threat to your religious beliefs and therefore consider it a "religious" issue. Government entities are restricted from teaching religious beliefs by the constitutional restrictions of seperation of church and state. Evolution is science just as biology or geology is. Because it is science, it is taught in science classes in school. The scientist who study evolutional theory do so for scientific purposes and not for the purpose of challenging people's religious beliefs. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, it just does not make it so. As I said, you are dealing with an issue near and dear to your heart that you feel threatens your beliefs making it emotional. Reason says it is part of science and not religin. It may not be a part of science you agree with or like, but it is still science.

[RobK]

kwc57,

 

You mistake me. I never said that evolution or scientific study is religion. I have never even said that I don't believe in evolution. While I am a Christian, and therefore precluded from believing in atheistic evolution (eg man, animals, plants, etc just happened randomly without the input of a higher power), I do not believe that God-guided evolution is necessarily precluded by the Genesis account of creation. While I have pondered the issue in the past, it has never been one that has preoccupied me.

 

I am amazed at your inablity to see that evolution, while not a teaching of any religion, because it directly contradicts the teachings of certain religions, is de facto a religous teaching.

 

Indeed, the very nature of a theory is that it is an explanation which seems to best fit the available facts. To posit the theory of evolution one must believe that it fits the available facts better than, say, the theory of a literal six day creation. How can one theory of the origns of man and the universe be a religous belief, yet another mutually exclusive theory of those origins not be a religous belief? If you switch from believing in the Hindu creation story to a belief in some form of the theory of evolution, have not your religous beliefs changed?

 

By the way kwc57, our posts have been a perfect contrast of the scientific method and simple emotional argument unbacked by evidence or reason.(This message has been edited by RobK)

[firstpusk]

RobK,

 

I am sorry that your religious beliefs are contradicted by the theory of evolution. That does not make evolution "de facto religion". Nor does it make the theory of evolution atheistic. Most Christians have no problem with evolution. They understand that the theory of evolution simply does not speak to religion. It tells the history of the development of life based on the scientific method. Many states had laws that made it illegal to teach evolution in the public schools. Those were all struck down because the intent of these laws was to support a particular religious position. By doing so, the legislature endorsed a particular religion violating the establishment clause.

[littlebillie]

"let's kick it up a notch"

 

So now that we are talking about the slave-owning founding fathers and ther "avowed" positions, I am not allowed to tie this back to the origin of this thread? See, I didn't know that rule. one is less surprised as to why so little agreement comes about...

 

Oh, and by the way, "Clinton's lie" was a specific example relating to Rooster7's generality. Apparently we are not supposed to test general remarks against specific incidents, either. Now, THAT policy can certainly allow Genesis Creation to stand unquestioned, I suppose...

 

" Evolution, therefore, is a religous belief. " you know, I'd say if this is true, then recorded music is idolatry and so a religous belief as well - golly we can extend that logic WAY far afield!

[littlebillie]

let's go with it!

 

The Church of the Plate, Tectonic

Temple of the General Relativists

Gestaltology

The Pythagorean Trinity,

Church of the Righteous Angle

Omegan Fermatology

 

Why does one theory become a religion, but others don't? God gives us clues in the earth to deceive us and thereby test our faith? Such falsehood detracts from God, whereas intellignet control of billions of years of evolution adds to His Glory...

 

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

Firstpusk,

 

Most Christians have no problem with evolution.

 

When did you become an official spokesman for most Christians? And how were you able to determine their beliefs?

 

Its possible you may even be correct, but unless you can point to a scientific survey, I think youve let your emotions drive you to an unfounded conclusion. Gee, now Im starting to sound like you guys

 

 

LittleBillie,

 

So now that we are talking about the slave-owning founding fathers and their "avowed" positions, I am not allowed to tie this back to the origin of this thread?

 

First, try to keep up. I think if you do a little rereading, youll discover that there was a progression to this thread and the conversation did make a distinct turn.

 

Second - slaving-owning founding fathers - its becoming clearer to me as to what your perspective is here. While I acknowledge that some of our founding fathers owned slaves, I am in no position to judge them. Apparently, given the same upbringing, history, and circumstances as our founding fathers, youre quite certain that your character would have stood out as the example. Until I am that confident, I reserve judgment. To be sure, slavery was and is wrong (lest you're tempted to infer I said otherwise).

 

Oh, and by the way, "Clinton's lie" was a specific example relating to Rooster7's generality. Apparently we are not supposed to test general remarks against specific incidents, either.

 

I assumed that you were trying to make some sort of a connection. Please refer back to my post. Draw the dotted line for mePerhaps, I am as dull as some think I am. How does Clintons lie relate to the fact that what people say in private or public somehow changes what we should believe about them and what they believed to be true?

 

[littlebillie]

"So now that we are talking about the slave-owning founding fathers and their "avowed" positions, I

am not allowed to tie this back to the origin of this thread?"

 

"First, try to keep up. I think if you do a little rereading, youll discover that there was a progression to this thread and the conversation did make a distinct turn."

 

So the answer is that I AM NOT ALLOWED to return to the origin of the thread and exercise my right of free speech, free association and conversational repair? I wouldn't have thought that, but again, thanks for straightening me out on how things are done on the boards.

 

"its becoming clearer to me as to what your

perspective is here. While I acknowledge that some of our founding fathers owned slaves, I am in no position to judge them." Nor I. But I do know that as a society we have gotten past certain of our 'Roots' and that the founding fathers gave us something that stood apart from them. Slavery WAS referenced in the constitution, and it took an amendment to clean that up. Chritianity is NOT referenced in the Constitution, and all talk about "agreed upons" is no more than that - talk - when we reference the FFs in association with the Constitution. The "Christian principles" that have been ballyhooed here were principles elsewhere BEFORE Christianity - at least as covers murder, theft, etc. Where I am coming from is that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to give us a working living foundation that could accommodate changing times (well, except maybe that right to bear arms thing that causes so much debate, in this day when there exists automatic weaponry that coulda wiped out an entire.... ok that's another conversation! :-)

 

I am saying I know what they wrote - you seem to be saying you know what they intended. But which shows up more clearly in the Constitution? My intent is that if you want to INTERPRET the Founding Fathers, you need to consider all we know about them, and spread it out on the table. But if you want to know what they launched this country with, you only need read the Constitution.

 

 

[firstpusk]

Rooster7,

 

Denominations that are Biblical literalist are much more common in the US. Talk with people in other parts of the world about creationism and they think you are kidding. I have had this experience with Christians from every continent. You only need to go to Canada. There it is viewed as joke.

 

With respect to littlebillie, he was responding to others raising the issue of "atehistic evolution". He has every right to respond. Maybe you should look for the posts he was responding to before you criticize.

 

RobK,

 

I think your understanding of evolution comes from creationist sources and not scientific ones. You speak in generalizations, so I can't address specific arguments. Suffice it to say, creationist sources are unreliable. I believe it is in your best interest to actually understand your opponents position. I don't believe you understand the theory of evolution. If you care to expound on your views I am more than willing to enlighten you.

 

littlebillie,

 

Another notch!

 

I think literalists single out evolution specifically because it makes it clear that the first chapters of Genesis can't be taken literally. Although, the literal interpretation of Genesis is but one approach, they can't accept it. They claim evolution is a religion out of desperation. They are grasping at straws.

 

Alternate views to the interpretation of Genesis have a long history in Christianity. Augustine for example. Accepting the validity of that tradition denies the validity of their position claiming "atheistic evolution". I agree, understanding the beauty of science and the poetry of the Bible both express our uniqueness in creation. I can accept my kinship with the other creatures as a blessing and "it is good".

 

 

 

[sctmom]

For Rooster:

 

From the "Laws and Ordinances for New Netherland 1638 - 1674"

The Director General and council have been credibly informed that not only conventicles and meetnis have been held here and there in this province but also that unqualified persons presume in such meetings to act as teachers, in interpreting and expounding God's Holy Word, without ecclesiatical or secular authority. This is contrary to the general rules, political and ecclesiastical, of our fatherland; and, besides, such gatherings lead to trouble, heresies, and schisms.

The director general and council, however, do not hereby intend to force the consciences of any, to the the prejudice of formely given patents, or to forbid the preaching of God's Holy Word, the use of family prayers, and divine services in the the family; but only all public and private conventicles and gatherings, be they in public or private houses, except the already mentioned usual and authorized religious services of the Reformed.

 

[ScoutParent]

Of course evolution is not science but a form of religion or anti religion. Don't kid yourself.

 

"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)." (Shallis, Michael [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], "In the eye of a storm", New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp.42-43)

 

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox but harder to eradicate." (Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "Is Science a Religion?" The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1., January/February 1997

 

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "Put Your Money on Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A., "Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution", in New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34)

 

There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last week's British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Salford was Dr John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious theory-that Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress. Durant said that scientists and popularisers have asked too much of the theory of evolution, demanding that it explain... "Life, the Universe, and Everything". As a result Darwin's theory has burst at the seams, leaving a wreckage of distorted and mutilated ideas, and man's understanding of his society has been hobbled by his inability to escape the conservative myths he has created. Durant bemoaned the transformation of evolutionary ideas into "secular or scientific myths". ... they have assumed the social role of myths-legends about remote ancestors that express and reinforce peoples' ideas about the society around them. "Like the creation myths which have so largely replaced, theories of human evolution are basically stories about the first appearance of man on Earth and the institution of human society," said Durant. ... Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science". ("How evolution became a scientific myth," New Scientist, 11 September 1980, p.765).

 

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof" (Matthews, L. Harrison [british biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275).

 

"Thus, a century ago, Darwinism against Christian orthodoxy. To-day the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." (Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, pp.48-56, p.49)

[ScoutParent]

 

 

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

 

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic

 

Reference

Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

 

 

 

'People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process."

 

David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, March 2021, 1993, p.5. (David Oldroyd is associate professor in the School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.)

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

littlebille,

 

Where I am coming from is that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to give us a working living foundation that could accommodate changing times.

 

Yes. I think I do understand where you are coming from. I dont agree. The Constitution should not be reinterpreted by each new generation so to accommodate the political whims of the day. Many of the Supreme Court rulings over the last 50 years fall into this category. The wisdom of our forefathers has been cast aside. The courts have decided to rewrite our laws. Ironically, many Christians seem to view the Bible in much the same way as you describe the Constitution. Life is much simpler when you can merely rewrite the rules as opposed to living by them. Our government has checks and balances (as Im sure youre well aware of). The courts have a role to play. However, Congress is supposed to write laws, not the courts.

 

firstpusk,

 

I have had this experience with Christians from every continent. You only need to go to Canada. Denominations that are Biblical literalist are much more common in the US. Talk with people in other parts of the world about creationism and they think you are kidding. I have had this experience with Christians from every continent. You only need to go to Canada. There it is viewed as joke.

 

Aah shucks. Once again we stupid Americans have gotten it wrong. Why cant we be as smart as the Europeans (or in this case, the Canadians) and the rest of world? This line of reasoning never ceases to amaze me. We have one of the most successful forms of government in the world. We are the most powerful nation - perhaps of all time. Theres more room for freedom of thought and expression in this country than anywhere else. When countries are not mocking us (out of jealously), theyre trying to figure out a way to keep their best and brightest from running into our arms. YET, for some strange reason, this country seems to be populated with the dumbest of the dumb. These other nations always seem to possess so much more wisdom. Incredible!

 

So just to clarify am I to assume that you are now speaking for all Christians around the world, and not just the U.S.? As I already noted, your claim about what "most Christians" believe, doesn't seem to be very scientific.

 

Sctmom,

 

From the "Laws and Ordinances for New Netherland 1638 - 1674"

 

So what exactly does this mean in regards to the founding fathers who established the U.S. government some 100 to 150 years later. Did you know of a specific Declaration of Independence signer who wanted to put similar laws in the Constitution? My point is Your history may be correct (there were some laws that discriminated against people of various faiths), but your conclusion is wrong (the signers at least collectively did not want this kind of discrimination perpetuated in the new government). In short, I think your comment is an unfair and damning generalization that defames the character of some our greatest and most moral leaders.

 

Patrick Henry:

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."(This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[firstpusk]

"Aah shucks. Once again we stupid Americans have gotten it wrong. Why cant we be as smart as the Europeans (or in this case, the Canadians) and the rest of world? This line of reasoning never ceases to amaze me..."

 

Rooster,

 

The question was whether or not Christains had to be creationists. You seem to think that because creationism is prevelent in your community, it is so everywhere.

 

I did not say Americans were stupid. You again try to put words into my mouth when you have no other response. This is a question of our ability to integrate scientific information with religion. Most Christains don't have a problem with evolution. You do. What makes you different? Are you smarter than everyone else?